Interim Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 23 CS 426/23
TRILOCHAN SINGH VS. MANJEET SINGH
24.07.2025
Present: Sh. Satish Sharma, ld. Counsel for Plaintiff with Plaintiff.
Sh. Sanjay Sarin, Ms. Gagandeep Kaur and Sh. Raghav Ravi, ld.
Counsel for Defendant with Defendant.
Matter is listed today for arguments on application u/o XIII Rule
1 r/w section 151 CPC for appropriate direction to the Plaintiff for filing the
original rent receipts relied upon him.
A. Perusal of record shows that an application u/s. 151 CPC filed by
the Defendant for adjourning the matter for final arguments is pending for
disposal.
Counsel for Defendant submits that present matter may be
ajourned for today and final arguments till the decision of the first appeal no.
526/2024 pending before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Ld. Counsel further
submits that subsequent to the present suit, a civil suit was filed by the
Defendant for the partition of the entire suit property. Ld. Counsel further
submits that since the said subsequent suit was filed by the Defendant, the
present suit should have been stayed by applying principles of Res Subjudice
u/s. 10 of CPC. Ld. Counsel further submits that both the Plaintiff and
Defendant did not inform about the said subsequent suit to this court. Ld.
Counsel further submits that parties in both the suits are same and the validity
of the sale deed which is in question in the present suit has also been
Page no. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
challenged in the subsequent suit. Ld. Counsel further submits that suit
property in the present matter / shop is a part of the suit property in the
subsequent suit.
Counsel for the Plaintiff has vehemently opposed the application
and submits that the subsequent suit for partition was filed by the Defendant
wherein his plaint was dismissed u/o VII Rule 11 CPC by the concerned court.
Ld. Counsel further submits that now, the Defendant has preferred an appeal
no. 526/2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Ld. Counsel further
submits that by merely filing an appeal to challenge the rejection of plaint in
another matter cannot be a ground to stay the proceedings in the present
matter. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit
for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and recovery of use and
occupation charges / damages, mesne profits on the basis of sale deed executed
by father of the Plaintiff in his favour. Ld. Counsel further submits that parties
in both the suits are also not the same as in the subsequent suit filed by the
Defendant, all the brothers and sisters were parties. Ld. Counsel further
submits that the present suit is at the stage of final arguments and Defendant is
deliberately trying to delay the proceedings by filing frivolous applications.
Arguments heard on above application u/s. 151 CPC. Record
perused.
The main argument of ld. Counsel for Defendant is that the
present suit is to be stayed in view of the principles laid down in Section 10 of
the CPC.
Page no. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
Section 10 CPC reads as under :
Stay of suit.
No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the
matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a
previously instituted suit between the same parties, or
between parties under whom they or any of them claim
litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in
the same or any other Court in 1[India] have jurisdiction to
grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits
of 1[India] established or continued by 2[the Central
Government 3* * *.] and having like jurisdiction, or
before 4[the Supreme Court].
Explanation.--The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does
not preclude the Courts in 1[India] from trying a suit founded
on the same cause of action.
It is clear from the reading of Section 10 CPC that the principles
of Res Subjudice is applicable on the subsequent suit. The present suit was
previously filed between the Plaintiff and Defendant. As such, the principles of
Res Subjudice is not applicable in the present suit.
The matter is at the stage of final arguments.
Counsel for Defendant has himself admitted that the subsequent
plaint has been rejected by the concerned court u/o VII Rule 11 CPC.
In such circumstances, only for the reason that the Defendant has
preferred the said appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the present
suit cannot be stayed.
In view of the above discussions, the instant application u/s. 151
CPC stands disposed off as dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be
deposited by the Defendant with DLSA, Shahdara.
Page no. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
B. Now, coming to the application u/o XIII Rule 1 r/w section 151
CPC filed by the Defendant .
Counsel for Defendant submits that the Plaintiff has relied upon
certain forged and fabricated rent receipts through which he is claiming
himself the owner of the suit shop, however, the Defendant had disputed the
same in his WS. Ld. Counsel further submits that he wants to lead evidence of
the expert witness to prove that the said receipts contains the forged and
fabricated signatures of the Defendant. Ld. Counsel further submits that
inadvertently, the PW1 was not cross examined on the above aspect and the
application for expert witness could not be moved earlier.
Counsel for the Plaintiff has vehemently opposed the said
application. Ld. Counsel submits that the defence evidence was closed by the
statement of the Defendant on 21.09.2024. Ld. Counsel further submits that
earlier, the Plaintiff had filed eviction petition before the Ld. Rent Controller,
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi wherein the Defendant categorically
denied the landlord tenant relationship in respect of the suit property and had
also denied that they have executed the rent receipts in favour of the Plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel further submits that these facts are mentioned in the plaint of the
present case. As such, the Defendant had all the opportunity to cross examine
the Plaintiff in his cross-examination on all these aspects and to lead defence
evidence at relevant time. Ld. Counsel further submits that earlier also, the
Defendant has moved an application u/o XVIII rule 17 CPC to recall and re –
examine the Plaintiff which was dismissed vide order datd 06.04.2024. Ld.
Counsel further submits that the Defendant is in the habit of filing frivolous
applications to delay the disposal of the suit.
Page no. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
Arguments heard on the above application. Record perused.
The matter is at the stage of final arguments. The Defendant has
prayed for the direction to the Defendant to place on record the original rent
receipts and to send the same to FSL for handwriting expert opinion. However,
the Defendant was aware about the rent receipt in question from the very
beginning of the present suit. It was for the Defendant to take appropriate steps
or to file appropriate application at relevant time. The present application
cannot be allowed at this stage. Further, in the considered opinion of this
court, the genuineness of the said rent receipts is not a very crucial evidence to
decide the controversy involved in the present suit as the Plaintiff has filed the
present suit for recovery of possession of the suit property / shop on the
strength of alleged sale deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff by the father of
the Plaintiff and Defendant.
In view of the above discussion, present application u/o XIII Rule
1 r/w section 151 CPC stands disposed off as dismissed with a cost of
Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with DLSA, Shahdara.
Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant has not
cleared the previous cost. Counsel for Defendant ensures to clear the cost on or
before NDOH.
Now, to come up for final arguments on 15.10.2025. The date is
given as per the convenience of both the parties.
(Mohammad Ehtesham)
DJ – 03, Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
24.07.2025
Page no. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --